Collection Focus: Mary Giles at RAM

Collection Focus: Mary Giles at RAM

(front cover) Figure 1 Mary Giles Fading Light (detail), 2007 Waxed and dyed linen, fine copper wire, and fine iron wire 13 x 17 inches diameter Racine Art Museum, Promised Gift of Jim Harris Photography by Petronella J. Ytsma

(above) Figure 2 Mary Giles Center Fracture, 2011 Waxed and dyed linen, fine copper wire, and brass wire 3 1/2 x 13 3/4 x 12 1/4 inches Racine Art Museum, Promised Gift of Jim Harris Photography by Petronella J. Ytsma

Collection Focus: Mary Giles at RAM

Contents 3

Collection Focus: Mary Giles at RAM Lena Vigna

8

Some Memories of Mary Giles Jim Harris

15

Works by Mary Giles in RAM’s Collection

First Edition Copyright Š2020 Racine Art Museum All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Convention. Except for legitimate excerpts customary in review or scholarly publications, no part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or information storage or retrieval systems, without written permission of the publisher.

Published in the United States by the Racine Art Museum (RAM), 441 Main Street, Racine, WI 53403.

Proofreaders: Laura Gillespie, Laura Grayson, Jean Mandli, Tyler Potter, Liz Siercks, and Lena Vigna, RAM Designer: Jessica Zalewski, RAM Marketing and Publications Manager Printed in Waukesha, Wisconsin by The SCAN Group.

Collection Focus: Mary Giles at RAM is published on the occasion of the exhibition Collection Focus: Mary Giles, organized by the Racine Art Museum, Racine, WI, and on view from October 21, 2020 through January 23, 2021.

This publication and presentation of artworks have been supported with major funding from Kathy Robins, a good friend of Mary Giles.

Support of this publication has been provided by the Cotsen Foundation for Academic Research.

Special support for this publication has been provided by a fund established by Friends of Fiber Art International in honor of Camille and Alex Cook.

Racine Art Museum is grateful to the following sponsors: Platinum Sponsors Anonymous Nicholas and Nancy Kurten Windgate Foundation Diamond Sponsors National Endowment for the Arts Osborne and Scekic Family Foundation Ruffo Family Foundation, Inc. Gold Sponsors Anonymous Tom and Irene Creecy David Flegel Herzfeld Foundation Racine Community Foundation Twin Disc W.T. Walker Group, Inc. Silver Sponsors A.C. Buhler Family Andis Foundation David Charak Lucy G. Feller Johnson Bank Dorothy MacVicar Real Racine Trio Foundation of St. Louis Wisconsin Arts Board

Bronze Sponsors Andis Company Virginia Buhler Cotsen Foundation for Academic Research Tom and Jane Devine David and Ellen Easley Educators Credit Union Eye Care Center of Waterford Ben and Dawn Flegel Fredrick and Deborah Ganaway William A. Guenther Tom and Sharon Harty Angela Jacobi Bill Keland Knight Barry Title Group Eric Koopmeiners and Lena Vigna Media Sponsor Wisconsin Public Radio

Collection Focus: Mary Giles at RAM

With a cabinetmaker father and a mother who knitted, quilted, and did Scandinavian decorative painting known as rosemaling, Mary Giles (1944 – 2018) seemed destined to work creatively with her hands.

Revered for her willingness to push the boundaries of form and concept, Giles made objects throughout her career that reflected her interest in materials and traditional basketmaking techniques. An affinity for the natural world, also cultivated in her young home life, fueled the artist’s investigations of media including waxed linen, porcupine quills, and various metals such as copper and iron. Favoring the technique of coiling—a process associated with Native American basket traditions— Giles would move between three and two dimensions throughout her career, sometimes creating wall pieces, in addition to sculpture, that suggest aspects of the environment, human figures, and vessels.

Giles received her BS in art education from Mankato State University in Minnesota. Her fiber education was pursued in workshops with some of the most innovative artists working in the field in the last part of the twentieth century—Lissa Hunter, Diane Itter, Ferne Jacobs, John McQueen, and Jane Sauer. These artists shaped the shifting boundaries of fiber, generally, and basketmaking, specifically. Their guidance, her own investigatory nature, and––in Giles’ words––“a certain maturity” led her to develop a distinct style and “identity.” Specifically, she credits a breakthrough to a moment when her father offered her porcupine quills he found in the woods. Acknowledging the historical precedent set long ago by Native Americans, Giles began to use quills in her own work— embracing both their physical attributes and, for her specifically, resonant connections made with childhood memories of woods and her affinity for the environment.

Figure 3 Mary Giles Fading Light, 2007 Waxed and dyed linen, fine copper wire, and fine iron wire 13 x 17 inches diameter Racine Art Museum, Promised Gift of Jim Harris Photography by Petronella J. Ytsma

3

(right) Figure 4 Mary Giles 1,000 Feathers, 1983 Waxed and dyed linen and pheasant feathers 4 x 7 inches diameter Racine Art Museum, Gift of Jim Harris (opposite left) Figure 5 Mary Giles Shadow Profile (verso), 2001 Waxed and dyed linen, tin, copper, and iron 22 x 15 x 5 1/2 inches Racine Art Museum, Gift of David and Jacqueline Charak (opposite right) Figure 6 Mary Giles Shadow Profile (recto), 2001 Photography by Jon Bolton

Giles seemed to embrace a broad definition of the environment––as both the natural world on a macrocosmic level and the spaces that she inhabited.

She responded to the colors of sunlight and wood as well as the effect of a scuba-diving experience. Coming of career age during a time when many were using their work to make social or cultural comments, Giles sought to make work about beauty and “pleasure.” Notably, she established an individual spin with her emphases on the natural world in an arena of contemporary craft not traditionally associated with concepts of beauty.

Identifying their work as related to––but also separate from––historical and traditional practices, many contemporary artists utilize basketmaking techniques to create non-functional pieces. Those would be two-dimensional forms and sculptural works that may even be vessel-shaped but not intended for use. Many, such as Giles, sought out indigenous makers in order to learn techniques and histories, and reverently incorporate processes into their own work. Describing herself as a “fiber sculptor,” Giles acknowledged baskets as influences but kept her forms distanced from function—as evidenced by works from the 1980s such as Walking Tentacles II and Walking Tentacles III, 1984, evoking jellyfish forms; Black Effigy, 1999 (fig 18) with its abstracted human body; Fading Light, 2007 (figs 1 and 3) which echoes a vessel; and the wall work, Statistical Divisions, 2014 (fig 7).

Coiling—an ancient basketmaking technique––is the process that most directly connects Giles’ pieces to baskets. Coiling is basically winding strands of yarn or fibers––Giles uses waxed and dyed linen cord––around a core of wire, rope, or other similarly structured material. Calling the practice of coiling the “most comfortable place, almost an escape,” Giles found it after trying many other methods. Her embrace of it not only helped contribute to her individual style but encouraged her love of being in the studio and working. This sentiment links Giles to many who find solace in the rhythm and structure of laborious handwork processes.

Not surprisingly, an overview of Giles’ career reflects the ebb and flow and evolution of various interests. In the 1970s, the parameters of both so-called fine art and fine craft were being expanded by contemporary social and cultural conversations regarding gender, equality, sexuality, race, politics, and economics. Phrases like “female artist” were used as rallying cries,

well beyond mere identification. In the 1980s, as Giles began to develop her artistic direction, the fervor of the 1970s had mainly shifted into something less about a declaration of concerns and more about fully articulating those concerns in conceptual ways. Arguably, this allowed Giles to direct her attention to explorations of form and content while also pushing the boundaries of technique and the expectations of the fiber field in general.

As it spans the scope of her career, RAM’s archive of Giles’ work includes various iterations of themes and explorations of materials, many of which challenge the idea of baskets as functional only. There are baskets and vessel shapes created with history but not function in mind. Stylistically, Giles favored color tones that echoed the natural world—if the works did not actually incorporate natural elements such as porcupine quills or feathers. She played with texture to create pattern as well as using it as a stylistic point of contrast.

1,000 Feathers, 1983 (fig 4), the earliest Giles piece in RAM’s collection, reflects the artist working through concepts of a basket yet also highlights her addition of materials that bring color and texture—in this case, feathers. The knotted basket form is covered on the exterior with small feathers in shades of orange, pink, and black. While they do not shine or reflect in the way that metal would, these additions are certainly predecessors to the metal components that she eventually incorporated into her overall designs. One of the artist’s most distinctive additions to her later works were thin metal strips layered over a surface or core. In addition to creating surface contrast and adding color, shine, and form, the choice of metal further underscored her interest in the human condition. She stated, “Over time, some of these metals are going to change, and that’s fine…That’s part of all of our processes—nature’s process, the aging process.”

Shadow Profile, 2001 (figs 5 and 6), and the later Center Fracture, 2011 (fig 2) incorporate metal components in ways that add texture, color gradation, form, contrast, and content. For Giles, the material possibilities emphasized the physicality of the work as well as layered meaning. She would torch metal—found pieces, manipulated pieces, or metal wire—to alter color. This responded to the shifting dynamics of elements in the natural world—variations in light or atmosphere, the contrasts of surfaces and textures across flora, fauna, and landscape, and the naturally occurring adjustments to the environment.

5

In his essay regarding her process, Giles’ husband, Jim Harris, addresses her use of figures—often anatomically correct male figures—throughout her body of work. The variety of uses is, in and of itself, noteworthy. The aforementioned Black Effigy (fig 18), is a coiled vessel that elongates and abstracts the human form, the column of Fading Rhythm Totem, ca. 2000 (figs 14 and 15), is comprised of figures standing on one another’s shoulders adorned in metal fringe skirts, and Statistical Divisions (fig 7) offers a flatter rendition with many wire stick-like figures arranged in patterns suggesting gatherings or crowd formations. In an interview for a Minnesota PBS program, Giles described her use of the male figure in both aesthetic and metaphoric terms—as an “interesting image” and an “excellent symbol.” Tied to her larger interests, it reflects the human condition in both physical and psychological terms, and establishes links to natural cycles of growth and decay.

Giles plays with concepts that reinforce her thinking in sculptural terms. For example, with Janus Transparency, 2016 (figs 8 and 9), there are multiple vessel forms that optically push and pull the idea of surfaces and that offer differing color tones from front to back. To get the most complex and layered understanding, the work needs to be viewed from multiple angles. With metal strips made of copper on one side and iron on the other, the effect is like a shift from day to night. Her larger boulder-like forms such as Center Fracture (fig 2) not only reveal her capability with her chosen materials but also highlight her capacity to push a concept. The natural world is hinted at in an abstract way—as a geological formation at a small scale—while simultaneously rendered ultra-real with shimmering and craggy surfaces. It is both evocative of and removed from an environmental formation—powerful as it is both familiar and unfamiliar.

Giles’ boundary pushing garnered attention nationally and internationally. She represented the US at the International Triennial of Tapestry in Lódz, Poland. She was named a Master of Fiber Arts by the James Renwick Alliance, which supports the Renwick Gallery at the Smithsonian American Art Museum. Her work is included in over a dozen museum collections including the Minneapolis Institute of Art and the Racine Art Museum.

In its current makeup, RAM’s fiber collection is anchored by artists interested in baskets and basketmaking techniques. Mary Giles, with 22 pieces now at RAM and others promised for later arrival, is one of the most well-represented fiber artists, with works spanning over three decades. In addition, Giles signifies the impact women had on expanding conversations in and around art and studio craft during the late twentieth century.

While Giles may not have identified herself as a pioneer, per se, she pushed boundaries in her chosen media.

And, what is more, she loved the process of making.

Lena Vigna Curator of Exhibitions, Racine Art Museum

(opposite) Figure 7 Mary Giles Statistical Divisions, 2014 Lead, copper, and iron wire 21 x 40 1/2 x 1 1/2 inches Racine Art Museum, Promised Gift of Jim Harris Photography this spread by Petronella J. Ytsma

(above) Figure 8 Mary Giles Janus Transparency (recto), 2016 Waxed and dyed linen, copper, and iron 8 1/2 x 12 1/4 x 5 inches Racine Art Museum, Promised Gift of Cathy Barancik and Steven Novik Figure 9 Mary Giles Janus Transparency (verso), 2016

7

Some Memories of Mary Giles

The work of Mary Giles, using the traditional basketry technique of coiling, evolved from small vessels to multi-part works of great sculptural complexity. During years of work, she pushed the boundaries of basketry into fiber sculpture. She was a leader in her field. Whatever the form, her work was always defined by demanding craftsmanship.

As an architect, I am concerned with form, both natural and manmade.

Manmade forms are created through a variety of means that we call craft. For centuries, both art and architecture have shared a concern with craft. Artworks were often commissioned for specific architectural spaces. In the Renaissance, altars and paintings were as much crafted as painted. Architects, painters, and craftsmen were rigorously trained within their respective fields. Making things correctly and well has a long and distinguished history. That tradition does continue today.

Memory jars have long intrigued me. Each jar is encrusted with items from a particular person’s past. Each of the items or fragments evokes a specific memory of that person. The elements are brought together with some concrete or glue.

Here are some memories that I have brought together of the artist/ craftsman Mary Giles. She was my wife.

Men The question Mary was most frequently asked was, “Why do you so often use figures of men in your work?” Mary would answer, “Men, for better or for worse, have been important in my life.”

Her father was a very loving and supportive parent. An outdoorsman, he built a cabin for his family on a rural lake north of St. Paul, and as a child, Mary spent her summers there. She learned much from her father about nature and it would be a continuing influence throughout her life.

She married an athlete, a good-looking former football player. He took a position with the May Company in St. Louis where Mary became an art teacher. That marriage ended unhappily, as did a subsequent relationship. Thereafter, she embraced greater independence. Because Mary was very pretty, she continued to be pursued by men, and she continued to enjoy their company but with new limits. When I first met Mary, I was definitely in pursuit.

(opposite) Figure 10 Mary Giles 60 Men Purified, 1989 Waxed linen, iron wire, and paint 3 1/2 x 13 3/4 x 12 1/4 inches Racine Art Museum, Gift of Helen Gabriel Photography by Jon Bolton

At that time, she was making baskets covered with hammered metal and capped with a collar made of small fiber men, all anatomically correct. They were gathered so close that they appeared as a fringe.

I told a good friend who was the art critic for the St. Louis Post Dispatch that the figures were just used decoratively. “Oh yes,” she said, “I have always thought of men that way." Perhaps Mary did, too. Men were attractive, fun, and sometimes useful. They embellished her life.

Mary also responded to the graphic power of the male image in early art, such as the petroglyphs of the Southwest, aerial views of prehistoric land art, and the rudimentary figures of Native American baskets. She used similar representations of men on her baskets. Sometimes they were

made with the bodies of the men created as part of the coiling process but with the arms and legs added as three-dimensional elements. Some baskets were supported by the legs of the figures. Later, this idea evolved into totems with coiled bodies, the legs as part of a supporting armature, and the arms as free elements. She made over fifty totems! They were small and large, singular and in pairs. They were embellished with everything from puka shells gathered at the beach, to all sorts of metal elements both found and individually made by Mary.

For a 2007 exhibition, she made a piece with individual male figures made of wrapped wire placed directly into the wall. That work, over fifteen feet long, included literally hundreds of figures. I told her that I thought it was very interesting, that it gave her work a new scale, but that it would never sell. She received commissions in St. Louis, Chicago, and Washington, DC for site-specific installations. Later, she transferred the idea to panels.

She continued to experiment with those ideas throughout her career. Everything sold! She generously never mentioned my prediction.

The panel figures were used as marks or cyphers—graphic representations commenting on population growth, settlement, and immigration. The male image was no longer about power. It was useful to her in other ways.

Place As with many artists, Mary’s early work was experimental, using various forms and materials. As this was happening, she gave herself a sabbatical from teaching and went to Florida for a year of scuba diving.

The forms she saw in the sea inspired her and led to a series which was her first consistent body of work.

Every summer during her break from teaching, Mary would go to the Minnesota woods and stay at a family cabin. She loved being in nature and it was there that she produced most of her early work. Her father gave her porcupine quills he had collected and thought she might use. She made a number of pieces using those quills.

9

One of those works was seen by Jack Lenor Larsen, the legendary fabric designer, collector, and promoter of both traditional and contemporary craft. He purchased it for the Erie Art Museum. It appeared on the cover of American Craft magazine. That was the beginning of national recognition for Mary’s work.

After Mary and I met, we went to Santa Fe for five consecutive summers. Santa Fe became very important in our lives. Mary was deeply influenced by New Mexico’s landscape. Often, while driving, she would have me stop the car so she could get out and photograph the profile of a particular mesa. We also visited a number of Native American archaeological sites. Mary started producing works which referenced the forms of mesas and kivas, as well as the graphics of petroglyphs.

When I retired, Mary wanted us to make Minnesota our primary residence so she could be near her family.

She found a house in the woods on the bank of the St. Croix River near Stillwater. The house had a fantastic location with a sweeping 180-degree view of the river. Mary worked in the front of the house so she could see it. Living on water is fascinating. The light constantly changes and, on the river, there are the reflections of the opposite bank. Mary used the river reflections, the changing light, and the shadows of the trees on the bank as sources for many of the pieces she created there.

That house had a great setting but was a bit small, so we built an addition with a master bedroom and studio for Mary. Minnesota is a glacial area and during the excavation for the foundation of the addition, the back hoe would bring up huge boulders. Mary loved the forms of those rocks. Sometimes the boulders would split when they dropped from the backhoe. She found these split boulders particularly exciting. Thus began a group of works in which a larger form was created of several parts. Mary used contrasting materials, one to cover the outside of the larger form and another for the “split” that ran through it. They could only be understood by walking around them as new parts and new views of the inside space were revealed. Those pieces pushed the vessel-based idea of basketry to a new sculptural level.

The underwater world Mary explored while scuba diving, the Minnesota wilderness, the landscape of New Mexico, the changing light and reflections of the St. Croix River, and the split boulders all influenced Mary’s work. Sometimes, the influence was rather direct. Sometimes, it was subtler. But, as the place in which she lived changed, Mary’s work changed.

Material Mary was a very tactile person. Surfaces were of great interest to her; the bark of trees, moss growing on stones, the undulations formed in sand by the receding tide, weathered barn wood, and rusted metal. The character of much of her work was determined by the character of the materials she used. Prior to making a piece, she might make trial samples to understand the surface an individual element would produce when used in repetition.

Materials were frequently ready-made. They might be as simple as a small bundle of linen thread or wire.

She also used unexpected found materials such as puka shells, plant tagging sticks, and metal washers. But, most surfaces were created from materials Mary made herself. She hammered out wire so that it became flat and formed elements evoking scales or feathers. She made wire spirals which she hung on threads that were reminiscent of bark. Although the form of one work might be similar to another, the character of its surface defined its individuality.

One summer while at the cabin, preparing for a show, Mary ran out of a light color of thread. She had a quantity of a dark thread so she tried bleaching to achieve the lighter color. It didn’t work. But she saw the lighter thread, the bleached thread, and the darker thread together and was inspired to create a piece that made a blended transition from the light to the dark. It was an exciting discovery! She decided to try to achieve the same “blend” with metals using copper, torched copper, and steel. These pieces, born of necessity, were the stars of the show and it was an area Mary would continue to explore throughout her career.

In her later work, Mary frequently created compositions that incorporated pieces of found materials. For instance, sheets of rusted metal would be combined with areas formed by her wrapped wire figures. Or, she might collect driftwood at the beach and saw it or utilize a natural flat side to mount it on the wall as a shelf supporting a grouping of her coiled pieces. The natural shape of the shelf and the profile of her forms would be in dialogue. At other times, she created a shelf with a high back which formed an environment for her work.

These shelves could be made of weathered wood, rusted metal, or stainless steel, depending on the material used in the pieces placed upon them. The relationship between the material of her individual works and the character of the shelf were essential to both the overall composition and its enhanced visual impact.

Mary was very aware of the character of various materials. She responded to it in nature and it was a major consideration in her work. (opposite) Figure 11 Mary Giles Reflecting Mesa, ca. 2000 Waxed and dyed linen, tin-coated copper, copper, and iron 11 x 18 1/2 inches diameter Racine Art Museum, The Cotsen Contemporary American Basket Collection (right) Figure 12 Mary Giles Quill Medallion, 1986 Waxed linen and porcupine quills 2 x 7 inches diameter Racine Art Museum, Gift of Jim Harris Photography by Jon Bolton

11

Work Mary was an art teacher in a suburban St. Louis public school district. At one point, because of her own interest in weaving, she decided she wanted to teach it to her students. She soon realized that even the simplest looms were expensive and could not be shared. So, she chose to teach another fiber technique, basketry. The process proved to be too slow for young people. They preferred clay. Mary, however, found that she loved the process and started making baskets herself. As her interest and skills grew, she took workshops from a number of leaders within the field: John McQueen, who created basket forms from non-traditional materials; Jane Sauer, who created small non-functional sculptures using the traditional technique of knotting; Dianne Itter, who emphasized simply made units used in repetition; and the jeweler, Mary Lee Hu, who introduced Mary to the use of metals. Influences from all of these would be explored and expanded throughout her years of work.

While teaching, Mary would come home to her apartment, fix a simple supper, and go to her studio–– a converted second bedroom. She would work on her baskets every evening. On weekends, she would take her anvil to an exterior basement stair and hammer her metals, choosing the afternoon to be the least disturbing to her neighbors. While weekends were for prepping materials, evenings were for production.

She loved nothing more than making her art. (left) Figure 13 Mary Giles Soft Quill Totem, 1987 Waxed and dyed linen and porcupine quills 13 x 4 inches diameter Racine Art Museum, Gift of Barbara S. Rosenthal Photography by Jon Bolton

(opposite left) Figure 14 Mary Giles Fading Rhythm Totem (recto), ca. 2000 Waxed and dyed linen, iron, tin, and copper 71 1/4 x 12 x 9 inches Racine Art Museum, Promised Gift of Jim Harris (opposite right) Figure 15 Mary Giles Fading Rhythm Totem (verso), ca. 2000 Photography by Petronella J. Ytsma

When we met, Mary allowed me one date each weekend. Any other free time was used for making her art.

After she retired and we were married, I assumed that I would get more time with her. Wrong! The extra time was spent in her studio!

Mornings were the best time for Mary. It was when she would plan, when she would make decisions, and when she would look at the progress of a piece. She worked until noon. In the afternoons, she would run errands, work in the yard, or the garage, or the workshop. After dinner, she would return to the studio. Evening work was limited to production, not decision-making. If we had to go somewhere, whether a short or long trip, I always drove. It was not a masculine thing. It was because Mary always brought along something on which she could work. She worked everywhere. She completed many of the totem bodies in our car!

Basketry techniques are time-consuming. However, during the time required to make one piece, Mary would be thinking about the next. She often said, “I can’t wait to finish this so I can start the next one.” At certain intervals, always to remain a mystery, Mary would announce that she needed a new direction. Perhaps she was simply finished with a certain idea or perhaps she wanted to work on something different. Sometimes, the new direction might be a variation of something she had previously done. Sometimes, the new thing might solve a problem such as how to create a piece of greater size. Sometimes, the new thing was just that, new.

Mary worked every day on her artwork.

13

Vacations were an exception. They were scheduled and when on vacation, Mary did not work on her sculpture. Afterward, it was best to stay out of her way because she wanted to make up for lost time.

Our January stay in Costa Rica was different. Although Mary did not work on her fiber sculpture, every day she would go to the beach with two bags, one for trash and one for treasure. By the time we left, the beach would be clean and the treasure would be transformed into small compositions.

Before departing, she would hang a show of those works in the condo, invite friends, and donate the proceeds to save the turtles. Remaining pieces would be brought home to be installed in the garage. The garage was Mary’s domain. She covered its walls with natural specimens, found objects, and her Costa Rica constructions. This installation constantly evolved. She loved changing and recreating the environment in which we lived.

I have always heard that artists “have to make art.” I did not understand that because, in my view, artists followed the Renaissance model and went to their studios like others went to the office. It was work. Once I met Mary, I understood. Her work defined the rhythm of her life. It was essential to her being. It defined who she was.

(above) Figure 16 Mary Giles Kiva Gathering, 1992 Waxed and dyed linen and copper 2 1/4 x 15 inches diameter Racine Art Museum, Promised Gift of Johnson Bank, Trustee of the QTIP Trust for William B. Boyd u/a Karen Johnson Boyd (opposite) Figure 17 Mary Giles Spirits of Freedom #16, 1990 Waxed and dyed linen, wire, and iron 10 3/8 x 7 1/4 inches diameter Racine Art Museum, Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Bertram Gabriel, Jr. Photography by Jon Bolton

Mary’s work was constant. Its evolution was mostly formed by artistic issues; but changes in her life also produced changes in the work. The two were intimately interrelated. Her work was consistent, all encompassing, and included both continuity and change. Mary was a true artist.

Jim Harris Architect Associate Professor Emeritus and former Associate Dean, Washington University School of Architecture, St. Louis, Missouri Art Critic, St. Louis Post Dispatch, St. Louis, Missouri

1,000 Feathers, 1983 Waxed and dyed linen and pheasant feathers 4 x 7 inches diameter Racine Art Museum, Gift of Jim Harris Walking Tentacles II, 1984 Waxed and dyed linen, nylon, and silk 5 x 3 3/4 inches diameter Racine Art Museum, Gift of Jim Harris Walking Tentacles III, 1984 Waxed and dyed linen, nylon, and silk 3 3/4 x 4 1/2 inches diameter Racine Art Museum, Gift of Jim Harris

Metal Feathers, ca. 1985 Waxed and dyed linen and iron 9 x 8 1/4 inches diameter Racine Art Museum, Gift of Jane Sweeney

Works by Mary Giles in RAM’s Collection

Quill Medallion, 1986 Waxed linen and porcupine quills 2 x 7 inches diameter Racine Art Museum, Gift of Jim Harris Soft Quill Totem, 1987 Waxed and dyed linen and porcupine quills 13 x 4 inches diameter Racine Art Museum, Gift of Barbara S. Rosenthal

15

(opposite left) Figure18 Mary Giles Black Effigy, 1998 Waxed and dyed linen 26 1/2 x 5 inches diameter Racine Art Museum, Gift of Jim Harris (opposite right) Figure 19 Mary Giles Carbon Artifact, 1999 Waxed and dyed linen and iron wire 24 x 3 1/3 x 2 inches Racine Art Museum, The Cotsen Contemporary American Basket Collection Photography by Jon Bolton

60 Men Purified, 1989 Waxed linen, iron wire, and paint 3 1/2 x 13 3/4 x 12 1/4 inches Racine Art Museum, Gift of Helen Gabriel Metal Men, 1989 Waxed and dyed linen, wire, and iron 7 1/2 x 5 inches diameter Racine Art Museum, Promised Gift of Laura and Steven Grayson Coppered Men, ca. 1990 Waxed and dyed linen and copper 3 1/4 x 9 1/2 x 15 inches Racine Art Museum, Gift of Marilyn Radke Torso, ca. 1990 Waxed and dyed linen 16 3/4 x 10 x 4 inches Racine Art Museum, Gift of Marilyn Radke Spirits of Freedom #16, 1990 Waxed and dyed linen, wire, and iron 10 3/8 x 7 1/4 inches diameter Racine Art Museum, Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Bertram Gabriel, Jr. Kiva Gathering, 1992 Waxed and dyed linen and copper 2 1/4 x 15 inches diameter Racine Art Museum, Promised Gift of Johnson Bank, Trustee of the QTIP Trust for William B. Boyd u/a Karen Johnson Boyd

Fading Rhythm Totem, ca. 2000 Waxed and dyed linen, iron, tin, and copper 71 1/4 x 12 x 9 inches Racine Art Museum, Promised Gift of Jim Harris Reflecting Mesa, ca. 2000 Waxed and dyed linen, tin-coated copper, copper, and iron 11 x 18 1/2 inches diameter Racine Art Museum, The Cotsen Contemporary American Basket Collection Shadow Profile, 2001 Waxed and dyed linen, tin, copper, and iron 22 x 15 x 5 1/2 inches Racine Art Museum, Gift of David and Jacqueline Charak Fading Light, 2007 Waxed and dyed linen, fine copper wire, and fine iron wire 13 x 17 inches diameter Racine Art Museum, Promised Gift of Jim Harris Hot Spots, 2009 Copper, iron wire, paint, and wood 51 3/4 x 40 x 1 1/2 inches Racine Art Museum, Gift of David and Jacqueline Charak Center Fracture, 2011 Waxed and dyed linen, fine copper wire, and brass wire 3 1/2 x 13 3/4 x 12 1/4 inches Racine Art Museum, Promised Gift of Jim Harris

Black Effigy, 1998 Waxed and dyed linen 26 1/2 x 5 inches diameter Racine Art Museum, Gift of Jim Harris

Statistical Divisions, 2014 Lead, copper, and iron wire 21 x 40 1/2 x 1 1/2 inches Racine Art Museum, Promised Gift of Jim Harris

Carbon Artifact, 1999 Waxed and dyed linen and iron wire 24 x 3 1/3 x 2 inches Racine Art Museum, The Cotsen Contemporary American Basket Collection

Janus Transparency, 2016 Waxed and dyed linen, copper, and iron 8 1/2 x 12 1/4 x 5 inches Racine Art Museum, Promised Gift of Cathy Barancik and Steven Novik

Racine Art Museum 441 Main Street Racine, Wisconsin 53403 262.638.8300 ramart.org

$5.00 ISBN 978-0-9831837-6-1

50500>

9 780983 183761